Review: Pseudoscience and the Paranormal: A Critical Examination of the Evidence

Pseudoscience and the Paranormal: A Critical Examination of the Evidence by Terence Hines
My rating: 4 of 5 stars

Basically a textbook on debunking, I mostly like the bibliography here fitting into the approach of considering fantastic notions in the context of relevant, published studies. Some of these overviews of studies include interesting facts I do not believe I have heard before, such as the unreliability of "blips" on 20th Century radar not capable of aircraft identification:

But what about the radar report of two unidentified targets? Amusingly, it turns out that the targets were two of the aircraft that reported the UFOs in the first place. In 1969 airport radar did not automatically identify planes that appeared on the screen. The operator had to place a written note next to the screen identifying each "blip." Aircraft that were passing over rather than landing at a particular airport were not honored with such a written identification. None of the three aircraft that reported the UFOs was landing at St. Louis. Thus, when the first aircraft reported seeing the UFOs, the tower at St. Louis correctly reported that there were two "unidentified" targets in the area. There were the two other aircraft that moments later also reported the UFOs. Modern airport radars now automatically identify all aircraft in their area by picking up a special signal from each aircraft's transponder. Klass (1984- 85) has noted that, as radars have become more sophisticated at correctly identifying aircraft and filtering out sources of error, the number of radar UFO reports has dropped almost to zero. Of course, if UFOs were real, one would expect the increased sophistication and sensitivity of modern radar to increase the number of UFOs seen on radar.

I had hoped for some redeeming value found in the consideration of psychology, like the lie detector chapter which suggests a potentially valuable tool is too often misused in setup and lack of double-blind approach:

Lykken (1981) has developed what he terms the "Guilty Knowledge Test," which evaluates an individual's physiological reaction to information that only the criminal could have. In Lykken's (1981) hypothetical example, a double murder has been committed. Police officers photograph the bodies in the actual positions where they were found. Additional photographs are taken of each body after it has been moved about the house to different, but equally plausible locations. An innocent suspect would respond with equal arousal to pictures of the bodies whether they were in the actual or the "posed" positions, assuming that the innocent suspect had not had the opportunity to see the bodies in their correct positions. The murderer, however, Lykken (1981) argued, would respond with greater arousal to the picture that only he or she knew to be correct. Laboratory studies of the Guilty Knowledge Test...

As one who in my 20s was in awe of the writings of Carlos Castaneda (thought no longer), I was disappointed to learn of how blatant the fraud was and how well known:

What is most interesting is the response that has greeted the revelation that Castaneda's works are fictional. First, there has been no real attempt to revoke his Ph.D., based as it is on fraudulent "research." Secondly, as de Mille (1978, 1980) documents, the response among many anthropologists and others who share the Don Juan type of philosophical outlook has been neutral. In other words, it doesn't matter if the works are fictional because the underlying philosophy is, in some vague sense, true. An excellent example of this approach is Shelburne's (1987) article titled "Carlos Castaneda: If It Didn't Happen, What Does It Matter?" Shelburne argues that "the issue of whether it [Castaneda's experience] literally happened or not makes no fundamental difference to the truth of the account" (p. 217). Such excuses are little more than intellectual used-car salesmanship.

If anything, this is valuable to me as a modern example of the evolution of a revealed religion and how it could grown and persist, despite being undercut in its very foundations. Even the Shroud of Turin is shown to have been seen as fake in the 1300s as recounted here...

Speaking of such religious mumbo-jumbo, there is a great quote take in the section considering the fantastic claims around Lourdes:

The French writer Anatole France made a telling and pungent comment upon visiting Lourdes in the late nineteenth century and seeing all the abandoned crutches and canes: "What, what, no wooden legs???"

View all my reviews